Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Steel Strips Wheels Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh on 8 May, 2014
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision: 08.05.2014
1
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Appeal No.ST/764-766/2010 & Appeals Nos.ST/194,
195 & 196 of 2012-CU(DB)
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.27-29/ST/CHD-II/2010 dated 8.3.2010 in respect of Appeal No.ST/764-766 of 2010 and Order-in-Appeal No.216-218/ST/Appl./CHD-II/2011 dated 4.1.2012 in respect of Appeals Nos.194 to 196/2012-CU(DB) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh )
M/s. Steel Strips Wheels Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Chandigarh Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri Udit Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Final Order No.52396-52401/2014 /Dated:08.05.2014 Per Rakesh Kumar:
Since the appeals Nos.ST/194, 195 & 196 of 2012 are linked with the Appeals Nos.764, 765 and 766 of 2010, these six appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The facts leading to filing of these appeals are, in brief, as under:-
2.1 The appellants are manufacturers of Automative Steel Wheels and Rims, which are exported by them. They filed refund claims under notification no.41/07-ST dated 6.10.2007 for refund of service tax of Rs.1,80,015, Rs.1,45,863/- and Rs.55,042/- paid in respect of services of transportation of export goods in containers by rail covered by Section 65(105)(zzzp) of Finance Act, 1994. These refund claims were sanctioned to extent of Rs.1,49,708/- , Rs.1,12,449/- and Rs.13,027/- respectively by three separate orders passed by the Asstt. Commissioner. These orders of the Asstt. Commissioner were reviewed by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Commissioner by a common order-in-review dated 8.3.2010 held that the refunds mentioned as above have been erroneously sanctioned by the Asstt. Commissioner and the same shall be recoverable from the appellant. Against the above order of the Commissioner , the Appeals Nos.ST/764, 765 and 766 of 2010 have been filed by the appellant.
2.2 While the appeals against the Commissioners review order were pending, the Department directed the appellant to pay back the above mentioned amounts, which had been held by the Commissioner as erroneously sanctioned and since the appellant did not pay back these amounts, show cause notices were issued to them for their recovery along with interest, which were adjudicated by the Asstt.Commissioner by three separate orders by which the recovery of these amounts was confirmed along with interest. On appeals being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against these orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order-in-appeal dated 4.1.12 dismissed the appeals and upheld the Asstt. Commissioners order. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appeals No.ST/194, 195 and 196 of 2012 have been filed.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. Shri Udit Jain, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant had engaged M/s. Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd. (KNPL) for composite job of customs clearance of the export consignments at ICD & at the gateway Port, transportation of goods in containers by rail from ICD to the gateway Port, handling of the goods at gateway Port etc., that on the services provided by M/s. KANPIL, service tax has been paid by them, that the services of transportation of the goods in containers by rail from inland container depot to the gateway port and the services provided by the Customs House Agent for clearance of the goods are covered for refund under notification no.41/07-ST dated 6.10.07, that the Commissioner has wrongly set aside the Asstt.Commissioners orders sanctioning refund on the ground that there is no evidence that the service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzp) on services of transportation of goods by rail from inland container depot to the gateway port had been paid and that in view of this, the Commissioners order setting aside the refund sanction orders of the Asstt.Commissioner is not sustainable and for this reason, the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the service tax demands on this basis are also not correct.
5. Shri Amresh Jain, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned orders by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner /Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner.
6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
7. In this case, the Jurisdictional Asstt.Commissioner had initially sanctioned the refund claims of Rs.1,49,708/-, Rs.1,12,449/- , Rs.13,027/- but subsequently, the Commissioner exercising his powers under Section 84 of Finance Act, 1994 had reviewed the Asstt. Commissioners order and vide order-in-review no.27-29/ST/CHD-II/2010 dated 8.3.2010 reviewed the Asstt. Commissioners order holding that refund claims have been wrongly sanctioned under notification no.41/07-ST as there is no evidence that the service provider had paid the service tax in respect of the service of transportation of the goods from ICD to the gateway port under Section 65(105)(zzzp) had paid.
8. On going through the records of this case, we find that while the appellant had received services in question from M/s. KNPL which included transportation of the goods by rail from the ICD, to the gateway port and the customs clearance of the goods at the ICD as well as at the gateway port for export, there is no document showing that service tax in respect of these services had been paid. We, therefore, hold that there is no infirmity in the Commissioners order-in-review dated 8.3.2010 and the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In view of this, the appeals are dismissed.
[Operative portion already pronounced in open court] (Justice G. Raghuram) President (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1